Want to create less cases in the court...decriminalize pot. The nation has had a war on drugs for at least 40 years. The billions we are supposedly spending on foreign drug interdiction each year could be better spent in the USA. Treat the addicted,teach them a worthwhile VO-Tech skill and allow to be productive once again. Not so long ago while researching DEA expenditures
it was revealed that some DEA funds are being spent securing oil pipelines.

Keeping non violent offenders locked up is not good use of tax dollars.

I agree with merrill,decriminalize pot....it has been almost 15 years since I toked,but to for the law to call it illegal and now there are medical reasons to smoke,legalize it!!!! Yeah,yeah they say it leads to stronger drugs.....BULLS**T,I never done anything else but smoke,well other than beer.....but I do believe someone who drinks are just as big as a risk if not more biligerate. So next time one of our lawmakers come back from "lunch",with a mint in their mouth, maybe they should reconsider their decisions on these matters......on the question above.......if there are kids involved,say within the home or with the sell,yes it should be tried in a higher court.Hey if we can't save ourselves at the very least rightfully convict those who endanger our kids!!!!

Funny thing, I just came back from Europe, and one of the places I hit while I was there was Amsterdam, which I'm sure most of you know about their stance on drugs. The funny thing is, despite the decriminalized nature of drugs (not to mention prostitution) the city was still remarkably clean and free of washed out or strung out druggies (at least during the day, night was worse, but still not as bad as most of Kansas city {minus the JoCo bubble} gets at night).

redbird: Pot is a gateway drug, and the reason for that is very simple, if you were to think about it. Due to it's illegality (to say nothing of it's easy availability) the people who want to smoke it are forced, in order to do so, to do business with dealers and the other parts of the illegal drug trade. So they find, then, ready made contacts if they want to move on to something harder, not to mention that often those dealers start suggesting the harder drugs that draw a steeper price themselves. A situation that would be totally eviscerated if you could, to writ, go to a bar and smoke legally.

Believe me, the pot bars were the most laid back, nearly comotose places that you would ever see.

If you live on the west coast you get a ticket for an ounce or less of pot , in douglas county you get intent to distribute , probation ,fines , testing , two years of crap , while we think this community is liberal the prosecution of low level drug crimes is draconian , probably cuz they have little else to do !

Yes, prosecute them at the federal level and maybe the punishment might make them think twice about doing it again. I was informed that it took a QP in order to be busted with the intent to sell. How is it that we support drugs in this city and we don't mind if there are plenty of dealers out there to sell drugs to our kids? I just don't get how liberal this town is at some points. Drugs only mask the true problems in peoples lives.

The no if they sell to me but yes if they sell to kids way of thinking cannot possibly work in a legal system.

My vote goes to "no" for users, handle them at the local level. "Yes" for dealers, let them deal with the feds. Dealers are no one's friend. If you think they will sell to you but not your kids then your head is not as clear of weed as you might think.

omb: I did not know when or how long you lived in Lawrence. Many moons ago we had a fantastic drive-in on W 23rd called Allen's. Their ultimate burger was called the Allen's Royale. It was a teen hangout complete with hotrods and hoods :)

Amazing. Not only does the question of the day not address the actual article that inspired it, but almost immediately the discussion turned to the difference between pot and the other 'bad' drugs--apparently the only difference between them is popularity. Everyone and their dog has smoked pot, apparently. This is the same hypocrisy that allows alcoholics and/or tobacco users to decry the evils of cannabis, grouping it with 'worse' drugs--while defending their own right to destroy themselves and those around them.

I enjoy an occasional drink, but if it came down to banning alcohol, I'd vote for it, 100%. Instead of falling down the slippery slope to legalization of more drugs, why don't we try climbing back up and tell ourselves and our loved ones that we will not be dependent on self-medication to get us through life?

I think drug users, instead of being warehoused in jails, should undergo rehab. Now I know that for any psychotherapy to work, the participant has to at least want to quit. That will undoubtedly apply to some. For the rest, they may learn more about why they "need" the drug to deal with their psychological stressors or to enjoy comraderie with friends. They will learn that there are other ways to get those needs met in healthy ways. And perhaps, somewhere down the road after they leave rehab and have been using for a while, some of those teachings will start to make sense and they will seek out help to stop.

Now, for those who have neglected or endangered children or significant others through their drug use, they should be punished for those crimes as well as get the rehab.

Almost all crimes are purposeful behaviors. Jail time should be spent in helping inmates understand their motives and needs and learn how to meet those needs through productive means. They should also learn the value of hard work by laboring on government projects to help pay for their internment and any debts they owe (i.e., child support, damages to victims, etc.).

There should not be any connection to the federal courts by State courts, only the part of the drug bust that is outside of the State of Kansas and in no other State (between States or in a foreign country like Mexico) should be in Federal court. Federal jurisdicition does not belong in any State. The Federal jurisdiction should be limited to outside of the States' jurisdiction. Otherwise we have no State government, only an all powerful Federal government that controls all the States. (A dictatorship).

We should stop the "war on drugs" as it is funding the importation of drugs into this country. The drug problem has become worse since the "war on drug" started.

Problem, action, solution: The government worsens the drug problem by importing drugs secretly, then they legislate more funding for the "war on drugs" to fix the problem that was created, then the solution is to bring more drugs in to keep funding up to build up the police state.

Liberty has a great point about states' rights and federal jurisdiction. However, while I may disagree with the way the War on Drugs has been fought, I still think it's a good idea at heart.

Now, if you're talking meth or pot, you can't prove that was brought across state lines--true. But I don't know how many coca or poppy growers there are in Kansas, and it seems to me if someone has cocaine or heroine, there's been some international or interstate crime going on.

they dont want to legalize pot because the states would loose out on all the money they get when they bust someone. i have never seen anything bad happen after someone gets high on pot, but it is truley different for the really bad drugs out there. these are manmade. pot grows naturaly.how can they ban something that grows natualy not man made???????????

It kills me how people are so quick to judge those that toke a little pot, all the while cramming prozac, wellbutrin and zoloft down there gullets as fast as they can. "There's no reason that people can't go thru life without doing all of those illegal drugs. Now someone hand me my mood altering pills I got legally from my doctor so I can get high!" TOB is right in that ganja smokers don't generally hit rock bottom. Like the guy says in the movie Half Baked "Have you ever sucked d**k for weed man?" I've been living in Lawrence and buying weed off and on for 15 years and the weed guys that I've always used would never sell hard drugs or sell weed to kids, so that whole "all dealers are scum and are out to addict your children to drugs" argument doesn't wash with me either. In answer to today's question, NO, keep the feds out of it. Whenever the federal government gets involved in anything they screw it all up anyway. Do we really want this situation to get worse?

Liberty: I'm interested in your post stating that the govt imports drugs secretly, and, if I'm reading you right, uses the drugs they smuggled into the country to prove the need for their program. Is that what you were saying? If so, can you provide credible resources to substantiate your belief? I am not being quarrelsome here, I just want some clarification and to know the resource(s) that brought you to this assertion. We all know the drug problem has increased but I do not know how much worse it might be today without some sort of intervention strategy by the govt. Thanks.

"Pot never killed anyone"
-Yeah, tell that to my friend who was riding with her stoned boyfriend. He then proceeded to crash and kill her. Was it stupid of her to be in the car with him to begin with? Yes. Did she deserve to die for that decision? No. Pot does kill people. Just because they may not overdose on it, it doesn't mean that it has no repercussions.

Somebody said that drug users shouldn't go to prison but, instead, should receive rehabilitation so that they can find out "why they need the drug". Maybe they don't need the drug. Maybe they just like being high. If that's the case, no amount of rehab is going to turn them around.

I don't know that traditional US prisons are the answer though. Usually a non-violent offender goes in to prison and comes out bigger and stronger(ban weightlifting in prisons!) and more criminally knowledgeable. Instead, send them to bootcamp style work farms.

The primary double standard here is that Cigaretts and Alcohol are both legal. Each DRUG on their own kills more people annualy that ALL OTHER drugs combined.

Secondly: Pot is NOT a gateway drug. Cigaretts have always, ALWAYS been more of a "gateway" drug than Pot ever was. Same goes for Caffene and Alcohol.

We allow opiates and methanphetimines to be part of our medicinal community yet the Government feels that Marijuana has no medicinal purpose ?

The Tyrany on marijuana has gone on too long ! The population has made its decision and made it a long time ago. The return on our war on drugs investment has yielded less and less as the years pass yet we continue to put more and more money into the program. The ONDCP (Organization for National Drug Control Policy) is a joke.

Branson's decision to send drug cases to federal court will compound the increasing prison population and destroy lives of habitual users. Way to schlep off the work load there Charlie.

If I ever get pinched the county sends a bright, productive, tax revenue generating, and wounderful person to Prison. Not just any prison a Federal prison....the kind that take advantage of your manhood so to speak. So not only is the US loosing a tax payer to help FUND prisons it's adding another person to an already full prison. Adding me to the Rapist's, Murder's, and TRUE criminals. It's a CRYING shame that Charles Branson is making decisions like these. He's increasing taxes one pot head at a time.

"Yeah, tell that to my friend who was riding with her stoned boyfriend. He then proceeded to crash and kill her. Was it stupid of her to be in the car with him to begin with? Yes. Did she deserve to die for that decision? No. Pot does kill people. Just because they may not overdose on it, it doesn't mean that it has no repercussions."-HKP

Pot dosn't kill people. Stupid people put themselves in situations that might yield undesired actions. You yourself held your friend responsible for getting into the car with a stoner....Why is it pot's fault? We need to place accountability where it belongs and try not to deviate from the source of destruction.

Sorry to hear of your friend's death. No one I repeat NO ONE should enter a vehicle under any drug influence unless they are comfortable with the risks. PERIOD. Marajuana is not to blame.

When there is an obvious conflict of interest (current users) the posts just become so many words. You are breaking the law. You have taken it upon yourself to decide which laws you will and which you won't obey.

It is possible that users defend and cling to their right to break this law because they do not realize that weed does in fact have a hold on their lives?

People deciding when they will obey a law is the root of all crime. At some level they all think they have justification or their actions. When the truth is they do it to get something for themselves, something they want (for whatever reason) that the law says they should not have.

I too have been to Amsterdam, I found it more than distressing to see stoned, adolescent prostitutes living and working within the law. The city loses all it's charm when you look into the eyes of the citizens whose quality of life is secondary to the needs of perverted pleasure seekers and tourists.

No. Federal Courts cost taxpayers way too much money if court appointed counsel is the order of the day.

As I said previously decriminalize pot/allow personal growth and we will reduce the docket numbers seriously. At that point the DA and Judges can get on with more serious items
such as white collar crime.

w_r: I cannot believe you just compared denying one group of citizens the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, that was given to other citizens, with the legalization of marijuana. People not being allowed to smoke weed is very different than someone being denied human status. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one. That seems like skewed logic to me.

Marion: man has also chosen, over those same years, to dominate women, molest children and kill one another over a glass of fermented beverage -- are we to just let that go as well?

merrill: allow personal growth? Growth into what? Hope they do not injure or kill themselves or others until they personally grow tired of being stoned?

Ceallach: Maybe my point was made ambiguously, so I'll give it another shot. In the past, our country has passed and enforced many laws which are unjust. One example, which I provided earlier, is the "separate but equal" doctrine. Another example is that women being denied the right to vote. IMHO, when the populace is presented with an unjust law, they have a duty to civilly disobey that law.

You're right when you posted that there are obvious differences between separate but equal and the legalization of marijuana. However, I think the two are more similar than you think. In the examples, there is a minority (population, political power, whatever have you) being denied the ability to legally partake, pun intended, in an activity.

I'm getting long here, so I'll try to briefly wrap up, and in the end we'll probably just have agree to disagree on this one, like you said. But IMHO, it is extremely hypocritical, and unjust, of any government to disallow the use of cannabis and to allow the use of nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, etc. As a responsible citizen, it is my duty to disobey and advocate for change of an unjust law, just as was done during the civil rights movement and the womens' suffrage movement.

O-Bob: Alcohol is illegal to use while driving. As our DVD's that are visible to the driver. Cell phones should be as well. I don't know how many times I have narrowly avoided accidents because of some moron gabbing away on a cell phone instead of paying attention.

Yes, pot did play a major role in my friend's death. The driver was under the influence of pot while driving. That is different than your friend not concentrating on the road.

HKP I think the best point to make then should be that pot should be illegal to use while driving because it puts some one under the influence. It's no worse than alcohol and it's a lot more fun in my opinion haha. Though I do not smoke anymore.

w_r: I do understand what you are trying to say and I'm not saying there is no merit to the fact that sometimes laws need to be changed. What I was trying to say, apparently very badly, is that we do not change laws by breaking them. Women did not secure the right to vote by voting. If there is merit, combined with public support, behind an effort to change a law, it will probably happen. Breaking the law while trying to change it lessens the effect of the argument, IMHO.

HKP: I sooo agree about cell phones while driving. With headsets readily available, and affordable, there is no excuse for driving with your head on your shoulder, holding the phone while you drive with one hand and do something else with the other. Driving in traffic is stressful enough these days.

i do not believe we should opening support pot usage.
We should give children an indication that drug usage
is not acceptable . We could start by
cutting out the supply side of hard drugs .
anyone found wthin 500 feet of a meth lab, should be gut shot, and left on the ground to bleed out

So if someone in the house next door has a lab, then I get shot for being to close. It's the parents who need to school their kids on drugs. If pot is so bad, then ban beer too. Too many a holes come in cans. Never got in a fight after a joint. What message are we sending Jr, if mom and dad get drunk every weekend of after work. Drunk, high, doesn't matter.

Posted by smitty on August 23 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
QP=quarter pound. Elbow was also used to mean qp but then I'm an old timer.

Only if your retarded. Elbow was short for lb, for pound.

As far as pot killing someone, so does fall down stairs. Should we all live on one level. More people die because of drunk driving, than driving while high on weed. If you get caught drunk behind the wheel, they you should be shot on the spot, hell shot everyone in the area. People seem to think that way today. Next time you have your kid run into the kitchen to grab you a beer, think about what message your sending them. "Mom and Dad get drunk so when I grow up, so will I" Great way to grow up. All you Lushes out there need to back off the bud and rethink yourself.

I think that dealers should definitely be handled on a federal level. But for users, I think the state should decide.

Being the square peg that I am, I've never tried illegal drugs (including pot) but I would hate to see some kid end up in federal court because they got caught checking it out. My understanding though (according to my friends that have smoked pot) is that it makes you completely anti-social. Who would want to be that way, anyway? As for the harder drugs... harsh punishment on a state level. Maybe after a first offense it could go to a federal level. Just hate to see kids "peer pressured" into the feds jurisdiction.

Back to marijuana, I really don't understand why it is illegal for medical use. When there are so many things out there completely legal that you can get high on, what makes this one so different? If it's because it's smoked, can't they just make a pill? But I digress....

Merrill, I have no idea if pot makes everyone anti-social. My guess would be probably not, but perhaps I could have phrased that sentence better. I don't have the vast supply of pot-smoking friends available to be able to conduct a proper scientific study. I also don't think I should go up to strangers on the street and ask. That might get me into trouble.

Shall we conduct our own LJW poll? I've never used so I can't supply any data for this study, but if you care to answer...does pot smoking make you feel anti-social?

TOB, the pill is probably less effective because it can't get into the blood stream at the same rate as smoking...that would just be my uneducated guess. I was unaware that they made a pill though...ya learn something new everyday!

You seem to have a clear and outright disapproval for any recreational marajuana use. By that do you reject all that marajuana and other drugs have done for you ? Think before you answer......

Drugs have ENHANCED our lives. We benefit from the experimintation of drugs every single day of our lives.... Don't believe me? Just turn on the radio. The all too well known FACT that much if not all of our classic and contempoary music has, is, and will be influenced by DRUGS !!!! It dosn't stop there folks books, movies, videos, various kinds of literature.....the proponents to send drug cases to the federal courts and anti-marijuana crowd spew the tyranical rhetoric all day long then hop in their car and turn on the beatles or maybe Billie Holiday, or the Stones, or Crosby Stills Nash and sometimes Young. All of em Hypocrites. You can't have your cake and eat it too! Swalow the TRUTH and cast aside all that you relish that has been enhanced by DRUGS NOW!

Generally, smoking grass makes me neither anti, un, or asocial. Of course, my level of sociability probably depends on my general mood that day, the quality and quantity of the smoke, as well as the combination with alcohol (which can be a very good or very bad thing, from my experiences).

Manson: My feelings rest on the fact that it is illegal, not whether or not some people can smoke it recreationally with little or not undesireable effects. I have known some people who smoked and handled themselves and society very well and others who could be quite "untoward" while smoking. To a person, they did not think they act differently when they were stoned -- and they did. Many were dramatically emotional, be it happy or sad, lonely or mad.

As a youngster, bowing to peer pressure, I tried smoking weed with friends a few times. I did not like the effect it had on me. I realized something was wrong when the TV changed to a different show with every blink or two of my eyes :) I'm quick that way. I did not feel in control of myself or my surroundings and for me that was an undesireable, unacceptable effect.

I hope they approve the medical use of marijuana. It is my understanding that smoking it delivers the anti-nausea effect faster and more effectively than pills taken orally, which many patients cannot keep down.

Calleach says: When there is an obvious conflict of interest (current users) the posts just become so many words. You are breaking the law. You have taken it upon yourself to decide which laws you will and which you won't obey.

Indeed, that sums it up quite aptly. I choose which laws to operate under all the time. Most people do (speeding, jaywalking). And you are correct, people deciding which laws to break is the cause of all crime. Crime is, by definition, breaking the law, which makes your argument circular and, sorry, fallacious. If I don't directly hurt anybody by my actions, which I feel are usually pretty well thought out and, generally, fairly responsible, then I don't give a rats a$$ what some faceless beurucrat (sp?) thinks I can and cannot do responsibly.

As for the redlight prostitutes, I agree that it's pretty sad. But have you ever looked in the same way at a McDonalds employee? (I think I'm joking, but I'm not quite sure)

"Man has sought since the dawn of intelligence and reason to alter his mind through the use of psychoactive substance and is not likely to change that aspect of human behaviour any time real soon. That which is prohibited cannot be controlled."

I was not trying to bait you about anything, I have already said I was not against changing the law. I am against disobeying the current law. Man/woman interactions were just a part of my post, I also said men kill each other over a glass of fermented beverage. It appeared to me that your post insinuated that it was human nature to alter our minds and should not be prohibited.

btw, I have been dealing with the subject at hand all day Marion, don't be such a bully.

This "gateway" drug theory is really going downhill these days. The generation of kids coming up are moving away from smoking dope cause it is smelly and easy to get caught with. Now kids who have never smoked a joint steal or buy prescription drugs. It isn't really "drug use" if it is a pill, ya know... Now where are they getting those attitudes? And it is MORE dangerous than pot ever was cause they are mixing and matching and chasing them with alcohol....

jonas, "circular and, sorry, fallacious," you lost me with that logic because I do not see what I wrote as circular at all. However, if you are saying [I decide to break the law, breaking the law is a crime, I am not a criminal, therefore my breaking the law cannot be a crime.] Now that sounds circular to me.

Marion, we can agree on several points :) "Such a long history of behaviour certainly indicates something at work!" we can agree on that although we may not agree concerning what is at work.

We also agree that people are going to do what they are going to do.

I admit that I am not always clear, concise and to the point, but I try to be. I don't suppose I could blame the fact that I'm home sick and on two drugs today :) My drugs of choice being tylenol and benadryl, cuz I dot a told.

calleach: the line I was referring to was "People deciding when they will obey a law is the root of all crime" but perhaps circular/fallacious is not as workable as rather obvious. At any rate, the problem is that the word "crime" has a weighted connotation to negativize (word?) the action. I'm not saying by that that crime is a good thing, just that it does not, necessarily happen to be bad. There are many cases throughout history where positive gains happened by ignoring or acting against the current viewpoint of acceptable vs unacceptable behavior. I don't know if drug use can fit into that category (really, I rather doubt it) but I think that the "eradication of crime" is a dubious, not to mention impossible, goal.

Thanks, Marion. That should work! I'm such a wimp when it comes to alcohol, the first one would probably knock me out and thereby solve my problem with aches and pains :)

sun_sue: I've been doing just that today. I just started a series of books recommended to me by a friend. I am almost finished with The Skystone and anxious to move on to the next. How is the little one's throat?

jonas, you are right, that eradication of crime goal will be impossible as long as there is more than one person on this globe. Becaue the second one is sure to disagree at least in part to some law. It's true history is full of circumstances and events that required men and women of good conscientious to disobey the law. (Although, I'm not recalling any that dealt with a persons choice of recreational substances :) I believe mj might well be legalized one day. When that happens, as Marion pointed out earlier, there will be controls in place and I doubt if everyone will like the controls either. That may be a future On the Street topic. "Do you think the controls on mj are too restricting?" This board could really go to town on that one too :):)

btw jonas -- your last post turned me into a cal leach, I'm hoping that was accidental. It's Ceallach :) [Kell Lock] a Gaelic name that later became Kelly, Kelley, or Kellogg. "Leach" brings back bad memories of some of the terms of endearment used by my first husband :-p just joking.

Ceallach, what a coinky-dink. I just finished "Skystone" and am 3/4 of the way through "The Singing Sword" (I bet we have the same friend;)

Babe's throat is doing just fine. Still on the codeine, though (she just can't kick the habit;)). She ought to be back to school tomorrow but I don't think she'll make it a full day. She'll bounce back soon enough and then we will (hopefully) have lots of strep-free years to look forward to.

For those interested: I just returned from the meeting on the proposed BIODIESEL plant. (Thought I'd just take yet another opportunity to mention alternative fuel sources after most people cease to care that I've gone off topic.)

The United States already has more of its citizens in jail and prison than ANY other country in the world. In the land of the free 750,000 people a year are arrested for pot, medical and or otherwise with 92% of those for possesion only. Why not save the jail space for violent, sexual, and real criminals who would commit crimes against children and the public? Not one single person in history has died from an overdose of pot. 1400 college kids 18-21 die every year from alcohol poisoning and alcohol related deaths, over 75,000 American adults die from alcohol poisoning and alcohol related illness and injuries. These harsh penalties are based on 20th century laws and data that have been proven false by scholars, scientists and our own government researchers and is documented and varifiable. Building more prisons and employing more guards is NOT job creation. Taking moms and dads off the roles of contributing taxpayer (assets) and turning them into non tax paying (liabilities) of the state ar $50,000. dollars per year cost for non violent Marijuana offenders is the biggest rip off and disservice to the tax payer of any. Lets use common sense, no one under 21, ABSOLUTELY NO HARD DRUGS and medical Marijuana for the chronic and terminally ill ( who are NOT insurgents in the trumped up misguided war on drugs) and stop adding insult to injury by making these desperately ill patients under a certified doctors supervision FELONS.

cellach and sunflower sue- How do you feel about these laws--
Any minor child under age 21 can LEGALLY drink 3.2 beer. One day old babys up to 20 years 11 months and 30 days (legal description of a minor in Kansas) with a parents permission. Kansas is the ONLY state in America that allows this. No wine is included in this law, not even alcohol reduced wine which means that any minister, priest , Rabbi or other clergyman cannot serve communion wine to anyone under 21. If they do they are contributing to the deliquency, furnishing alcohol to a minor and under the new tougher guidelines adopted last year can be fined and or imprisoned for doing so. Should we set up a sting operations in churches and catch these preacher criminals? The law is the law and if you don't like it move or change the law.

A 14 year old girl can legally marry a 17 year old boy with a parents consent, but if they have sex, he is a rapist and must register as a sexual offender for life. She is complicant and could and should under the law be made to register as a sexual offender for life. The law is the law and if you don't like it move or vote to change it.

We allow corperate soft drink companies to LEGALLY sell their Caffiene (drug) ladden soda to 6 year old kids in schools. This is an addicting drug and because we have sold out to these companies they now dictate school policy through binding contract agreements with individual schools. Soda pop is the gateway drug that 99% of all Heroin addicts first chemical high came from the federally regulated Caffiene in pop.
Many laws are on the books that are outdated and nonsensical. In Chico California alcohol was banned from college hazing, the new recruits instead were forced to drink 5 gallons of water resulting in the death of a freshman from overhydration, we won't be banning water anytime soon.
Its all about personal responsibility, when all of the above items and laws mentioned above are legal does that make them right? 49 states say Kansas is wrong allowing children to drink alcohol, are they all wrong? When Marijuana is legalized in Kansas will we allow children to smoke Hemp because of the reduced rates of THC and CBN's? This is insanity and there are no moral or legal justifactions for arresting responsible adults for using pot in their own homes and allowing 6 year old children to legally drink 3.2 beer and buy drugs from the soft drink machine at school from legal (Caffiene) corperate drug pushers.

The law in Lawrence now wants to make people do their work for them by snitching off other victims of the war on drugs. We as citizens are not paid to or are in any way obligated to help the police ruin more peoples careers and lives over pot. If pot were legalized then the 20,000,000 regular users would not feel like hypocrits in helping the police catch and identify HARD drug dealers and users. This would be 20,000,000 more sets of eyes and ears to help end hard drug use. Hard drugs Actually kill people and so does legal alcohol. If pot users were not forced to visit drug houses or deal with pushers there would be no reason to be associated with those sick and greedy killers of our culture. We would no longer be funding the rebels and terrorists and could provide treatment and education to all people addicted to Hard drugs, alcohol and gambling or create a boon for cash strapped schools through legal taxation.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going! Just because we haven't stamped out pot, that is no reason to throw in the towel. We already have alcohol messing up society. Why legalize pot or make it a lesser crime? Maybe there are medical reasons to smoke pot, but that doesn't mean that everybody should be stoned out of our minds. Oh my, we don't want to keep pot smoking students from getting their financial aid from the government. KU even stated that isn't going affect hardly any students anyway. Maybe we should change Lawrence's name to Little San Francisco since everybody here wants to legalize pot. For God sake Scotty, beam me up already!